Cycling in the US from a Dutch perspective

[NicDiesel]

@lordofthemark 62612 wrote:

Part of the reason (in addition to history) we have such high average distances between our origins and destinations is BECAUSE our society is so built around the automobile.

A stronger argument would be “affordable” housing in the suburbs and, in places like DC and Los Angeles and Chicago, the exurbs.

[MRH5028]

As most have said there are obvious geographical and climate differences between parts of the US and The Netherlands. We also have a more automobile centric culture that is slowly being changed. I think the video, and things similar to it, can provide good ideas that can be adapted to work with our geography and city layout. At the very least it is a good conversation starter about cycling infrastructure.

[Steve]

@NicDiesel 62623 wrote:

A stronger argument would be “affordable” housing in the suburbs and, in places like DC and Los Angeles and Chicago, the exurbs.

Some might disagree with this. Suburban sprawl happened for lots of reasons: government backing, automotive lobby, decline of cities from industrial revolution thru WWII, etc. It was cheap because of government backed loans for new development coming out of WWII, government backed roadway projects, etc. Part of the reason you see local governments now trying to pull people back into cities isn’t just for livability/walkability, but also because the sprawl is so expensive to maintain.

I guess what I’m saying is that while affordable to the individual buyer, this was mostly because the government paid for it. There were lots of political/economical reasons that the government wanted people to move to the suburbs. You still see it today in how important “New Housing Starts” is for an economic indicator and evaluation of politicians. It’s hard to measure the economic value of fixing up a house.

[dasgeh]

@Steve 62632 wrote:

Some might disagree with this. Suburban sprawl happened for lots of reasons: government backing, automotive lobby, decline of cities from industrial revolution thru WWII, etc. It was cheap because of government backed loans for new development coming out of WWII, government backed roadway projects, etc. Part of the reason you see local governments now trying to pull people back into cities isn’t just for livability/walkability, but also because the sprawl is so expensive to maintain.

There’s a cultural element here, but it’s a bit of chicken-and-egg. Many families have wanted bigger houses and bigger lots, so “affordable” was defined as the biggest you could afford. I think that’s changing as the culture tends away from the car (and people realize tending to the big house and big lot sucks). I do think the government policies are a driving factor — if you can’t safely walk to a park, you want a yard big enough for the kids to play. So if municipalities maintain nice parks and safe routes to them from most housing, people will be ok with smaller lots/housing. Etc.

I think the tough issue is getting from what we have to what we want. Arlington is lucky in that lots aren’t that big. If the County works harder on getting the routes safe, we’ll get a lot of the way there. FFX and Loudon have a steeper hill to climb.

[NicDiesel]

I think you’re ignoring that most people can’t afford to live closer in, even if they wanted to put up with smaller yards. Hence why the exurbs continue to grow and people willing become mega commuters not to share a wall or floor with someone.

[MRH5028]

@Steve 62632 wrote:

Part of the reason you see local governments now trying to pull people back into cities isn’t just for livability/walkability, but also because the sprawl is so expensive to maintain.

Not only is it expensive to maintain, it is very expensive to convert to high density walkable areas. Example: Tysons plan for the next 50 years.

[mstone]

@Steve 62632 wrote:

Some might disagree with this. Suburban sprawl happened for lots of reasons: government backing, automotive lobby, decline of cities from industrial revolution thru WWII, etc. It was cheap because of government backed loans for new development coming out of WWII, government backed roadway projects, etc. Part of the reason you see local governments now trying to pull people back into cities isn’t just for livability/walkability, but also because the sprawl is so expensive to maintain.

I watch what they’re currently building right now in prince william and loudoun and wonder where on earth the maintenance funds will come from.

[lordofthemark]

@NicDiesel 62623 wrote:

A stronger argument would be “affordable” housing in the suburbs and, in places like DC and Los Angeles and Chicago, the exurbs.

part of the reason housing in walkable, bikeable urban places is so costly (recently, anyway) , is because we have not built enough such places – we have built places designed for autos, even relatively close in, and we have built too little transit – which in turn is due in part to the role of the automobile.

[lordofthemark]

to relate this back to the topic of the thread, why can they afford it in the NL, where IIUC average household income is no higher than here?

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 62656 wrote:

to relate this back to the topic of the thread, why can they afford it in the NL, where IIUC average household income is no higher than here?

What is “it”?

[Steve]

@NicDiesel 62645 wrote:

I think you’re ignoring that most people can’t afford to live closer in, even if they wanted to put up with smaller yards. Hence why the exurbs continue to grow and people willing become mega commuters not to share a wall or floor with someone.

Loudon County is literally the wealthiest county in America. They are plenty wealthy. Falls Church City and Fairfax are #2 and #3.

That being said, I understand what you are saying, that many people in DC can’t afford to live in the city. My point is that the suburbs would be even more expensive if it weren’t for the fact that the Government made it cheap by subsidizing the suburban development. If, say, the Government had spent that same money on developing the cities, you would probably find much more affordable city housing.

[mstone]

@Steve 62659 wrote:

Loudon County is literally the wealthiest county in America. They are plenty wealthy. Falls Church City and Fairfax are #2 and #3.

Most of the counties in the DC area are among the wealthiest in the country. That has more to do with the high wages and the concentration of poverty in the region than the cost of housing. (Except insofar as wages are linked to the cost of housing.) More to NicDiesel’s point, what’s the cheapest you can find a decent (not distressed) 3 bedroom single family home in Loudoun, Montgomery, Arlington, Frederick, Stafford, or DC? Sure as heck people drive to find cheaper houses.

[dasgeh]

I don’t want to get into the big safety debate involved with cheaper places to live in the District. But the web will show you plenty of cheaper places to live in Arlington. You’ll be safe and get good schools. You won’t get 1/2 acre + or 6,000 sq ft. Plus, you have to look at the cost of living far away. Once you factor in the ability to sell a car, the fact that you need day care for less time, the fact that you can go to the free stuff in DC for entertainment, it’s entirely possible to live comfortably in Arlington on a middle class salary.

Yes, we need to do more for our low income neighbors. We just do. In housing and in lots of other areas.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 62658 wrote:

What is “it”?

“I think you’re ignoring that most people can’t afford to live closer in, “

“it” is living closer in ” (IE closer to destinations). I am sorry I was not more clear.

[lordofthemark]

@Steve 62659 I understand what you are saying, that many people in DC can’t afford to live in the city.[/QUOTE wrote:

I think we may be over focusing on living close to employment locations in DC. There is a large amount of employment in this region that is NOT in DC. Loudoun for example has a lots of employment IN Loudoun. And lots of people who commute no further in than Reston. Perfectly bikeable distances. Yet Loudoun has very low bike commute shares. Thats not because a condo in Logan Circle is expensive – its because of how Loudoun is built – both its urban layout and its transport infra. and also, because given how hard it is to bike there, I suspect few folks in Loudoun who WORK in Loudoun bother to be within close biking distance of work. Similarly in FFX – few people (other than the hardy lycra clad folks I see on Hummer – more power to them!) choose to live close to Tysons rather than further in order to bike commute – because bike commuting there is so hard even you are close.

[Author]

Posts